Now that a growing number of top Iraqi officials are talking openly about a timeline for U.S. troop withdrawal, it’s worth taking a moment to consider how this might factor into John McCain’s vision of an indefinite war, followed by an indefinite troop presence.

As luck would have it, McCain was asked about this kind of scenario at the Council of Foreign Relations in 2004, and gave a very straightforward answer.

Question: “What would or should we do if, in the post-June 30th period, a so-called sovereign Iraqi government asks us to leave, even if we are unhappy about the security situation there?”

McCain’s Answer: “Well, if that scenario evolves than I think it’s obvious that we would have to leave because — if it was an elected government of Iraq, and we’ve been asked to leave other places in the world. If it were an extremist government then I think we would have other challenges, but I don’t see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.” [emphasis added]

Adam Blickstein asked, “Does the John McCain of 2008 agree with this assessment?” Sounds like the kind of question an enterprising political reporter might pose to the Republican candidate.
__________________________________________________ ________________

Seriously. We are still involved with countries that we fought decades ago. So will we be in Iraq in 100 years? Possibly assuming we are all still here. Did he say that he would still have the brunt of the US forces there in 100 years. NO

Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., back in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration's willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said "Make it a hundred." He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, "That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

That isn't exactly a "vision of an indefinite war, followed by an indefinite troop presence." is it?

Your source for news sucks, please stop quoting crooksandliars.

Read what really going on with troop withdrawl from a real news source.....

The significant question now is the pace and extent of any U.S. withdrawal, and the nature of any long-term U.S. military presence. Despite Mr. Maliki's comments, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was "conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security," according to the Associated Press. In other words, Mr. Maliki is not endorsing the Barack Obama agenda of immediate U.S. withdrawal starting on January 20.

Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., back in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration's willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said "Make it a hundred." He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, "That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

That isn't exactly a "vision of an indefinite war, followed by an indefinite troop presence." is it?

Your source for news sucks, please stop quoting crooksandliars.

Read what really going on with troop withdrawl from a real news source.....

The significant question now is the pace and extent of any U.S. withdrawal, and the nature of any long-term U.S. military presence. Despite Mr. Maliki's comments, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was "conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security," according to the Associated Press. In other words, Mr. Maliki is not endorsing the Barack Obama agenda of immediate U.S. withdrawal starting on January 20.

Come on Mike this isn't even a challenge, you can do better.

100 years is 100 years. You say that we have been in Germany, Japan, etc. since WW2, but there isn't and wasn't the same hostility towards our troops after that war. There is much hostility towards us now in the middle east and I guarantee there will be 50 years from now. There are just some people you can't reach, and extreme religous people fit that mold. Based on the historical violence in that area, if we stay there, there will always be violence aimed at us. just my opinion.

Take a look at what McCain actually said in Derry, N.H., back in January. Cutting off a questioner who talked about the Bush administration's willingness to keep troops in Iraq for 50 years, McCain said "Make it a hundred." He then mentioned that U.S. troops had been in Germany for 60 years and in Korea for 50 years, and added, "That's fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

That isn't exactly a "vision of an indefinite war, followed by an indefinite troop presence." is it?

Your source for news sucks, please stop quoting crooksandliars.

Read what really going on with troop withdrawl from a real news source.....

The significant question now is the pace and extent of any U.S. withdrawal, and the nature of any long-term U.S. military presence. Despite Mr. Maliki's comments, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie was quick to add that the call for a timetable for U.S. withdrawal was "conditioned on the ability of Iraqi forces to provide security," according to the Associated Press. In other words, Mr. Maliki is not endorsing the Barack Obama agenda of immediate U.S. withdrawal starting on January 20.

Actually they didn't quote the 100 year comment directly, that's part of the problem, the spin. they said.....

".....it’s worth taking a moment to consider how this might factor into John McCain’s vision of an indefinite war, followed by an indefinite troop presence."

Which is clearly not his vision when you read the actual quote in context.

If you want to make McCain look bad there are a lot better ways, like talking about his speech this week, where he said he is still for comprehensive immigration reform. That is a real problem facing this country and he is on the wrong side of the issue, 85% of America said no to McCain/Feingold and he still thinks it's a good idea. Pander... pander... pander...

When we leave Iraq is a distraction to the big issues of this election. The war is won, our troops will go home when they are asked to go home by the Iraqi Government. They will do it proudly, with a victory in their pocket, and the free people of Iraq as a new ally in the world.

Maliki is talking about a time line now for two reasons, one, he is playing politics in Iraq, and two, Bush is pushing him to commit before the election here.